Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Salzberg and Ernst on Chiropractic Education and Pediatrics, Extended Towards Naturopathy

here, I cite from Steven Salzberg's recent Forbes piece on chiropractic education nonsense [see 001., below]; then, Edzard Ernst's recent Guardian piece on chiropractic pediatric nonsense [see 002., below]; then, I extend those veins of criticism towards what's an even greater nonsense, naturopathy [see 003., below]:

001. Steven Salzberg writes at Forbes's Fighting Pseudoscience in "Why Does the Government Subsidize Chiropractic Colleges?" (2012-06-10) [my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"the U.S. is having a political debate about college tuition loans [...] politicians disagree about how to pay for the subsidized rates [...] lost in this fight is any discussion at all about which students – and which colleges – get these subsidies [...]";

any such anything, I believe, with Title IV access!

"what about institutions that provide a substandard education?  Or worse, what about institutions that educate people in quackery and pseudoscience?  Subsidies to these institutions are worse than useless.  These so-called colleges spread misinformation that will require much more investment to correct, if it is even possible [...]";

yes.  And, as I will mention in 003., many of them absurdly pose nonscience as science at the doctoral level.

"why, to be specific, is the U.S. government subsidizing students to attend chiropractic colleges? [...an area based on] subluxations [...which as an idea is] nonsense [...being that] subluxations have never been shown to cause disease [...and] have not even been shown to exist [...a] thorough lack of evidence [...]";

good question.

"low-cost student loans provide a benefit to many students and their universities.  But we don’t need to subsidize erroneous and misguided colleges that teach their students nonsense [...] lending students money to learn pseudoscience."

hear, hear.  I, to be clear, was lent money by the federal loan program to study naturopathic pseudoscience. And I will carry that debt with me until I die.

002. Edzard Ernst writes in "Chiropractors Continue to Treat Children Despite a Lack of Evidence" (2012-06-12):

"most Guardian readers will know that my friend and co-author Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for writing in the Guardian that the BCA was 'happily promoting bogus treatments' for a range of childhood conditions. The case ended with victory for Simon, not least because there is no good evidence that chiropractic spinal manipulation does more good than harm for paediatric conditions [...]";


"[yet] recent overview of data from 20 European countries showed that, internationally, chiropractors continue to treat children. The report suggests that skeletal, neurologic, gastrointestinal, infectious, genitourinary and immunity problems are being treated most frequently [...this] reluctance of chiropractors to get their act together, despite a lost court case, scientific evidence and mounting negative public opinion, is more than a little disconcerting. [...] the UK College of Chiropractors still has a 'paediatric facility' [...and] this weekend they will hold a Paediatric Chiropractic Symposium in London [...]";

you gotta start them young in order to have them as adult patients who then have children to become therein later adult patients!

003. naturopathic fully federally accredited and often licensed NONSENSE / FALSEHOOD:

well, I've talked about this to death on this blog.  You have the patently science-ejected falsely postured as able to survive scientific scrutiny.  You have naturopathic ideas such as "life forces" running physiology when they are in fact science-ejected, all the while naturopathy schools are labeling naturopathy essentially scientific.  You have naturopathic methods which are similarly 'of nonsense', like homeopathy and the like.  For years, due to naturopathy's false position, I've regarded the racket as insolvent...if only already existent consumer protections were implemented by the LAZY consumer agencies that I complain to.  I, personally, would want compensatory and punitive damages.  Let them feel that big pain, as they have abused the public's trust of the institutional status of education and physicianship.  It is false commerce and not the 'of professionalism' that they label themselves as.  After all, professionalism involves truth not falsehood, and is not operating worse than a really bad used car salesman.

it is pseudoscience, it is quackery, it is bogus misinformation,  it is the absurdity of presenting as 'in evidence' that which is anything but.

it is harm to the educational consumer and to the public's understanding of science.
Post a Comment